I was just having a smoke and this post on /R/PurplePillDebate distracted me. I don’t plan on spending any more time on there. Big mistake:
With bigotry falling to record lows, the acceptance of gay marriages, and the coming society wide acceptance of transwomen as women there’s now a path to get a greater imbalance of genders in society without a huge war to kill off 1/3rd of the men.
With broad acceptance of transwomen many of men who have catastrophically low testosterone and feminine features may realize that they have been a woman the whole time. They would then be available for CIS men to date and form relationships with thereby creating more competition among all women for the remaining CIS men.
Strangely enough the guys at the red pill don’t seem to realize this and instead promote bigotry against transwomen, along with all their racism. But they do seem to have come along with the acceptance of homosexuality so perhaps over time even the terps will drop their bigotry against transwomen.
Basic economics, right? Increase the demand for Beta males by increasing the supply of transsexual women? Because transsexual women and biological women are pretty good substitutes, right? Ignoring for a moment the impossibility of raising a biologically-related family (which I presume is a hot button for most men in terms of intersexual demand), basic supply/demand economics simply isn’t helpful here, because demand between men and women is statistically asymmetrical. The qualities that women prefer of men are Pareto distributed and the qualities than men prefer of women are Normally distributed. This matters.
One result of my previous article, What Can a Computer Simulation Tell Us About Hypergamy?, counter-intuitively shows that a sublinear scaling law exists in which a doubling of the female-to-male population sex ratio significantly amplifies competition for women amongst men because it increases the extent to which Hypergamy captures female attention, and thus increases the time until which women decide they are ready to “settle” for inferior quality mates.
With more eyeballs watching, the competition for social status amongst women becomes more intense than ever. Jack up the supply of women relative to men and the quantity of intrinsically fulfilling pair-bond opportunities men of low status declines as they are relegated to the compost bins of a now hyper-ruthless sexual pecking order.
I replied with the following:
Hypergamy acceptance is a joke. Transwomen are not a close substitute for biologically authentic women. Incels want meaningful relationships with real women. Women, unfortunately, are strictly opportunistic and simply won’t comply unless Hypergamy is explicitly regulated.
You can’t just keep printing women and hope that artificial incel confidence will substitute demand for meaningful biologically normal relationships and the benefits of subsequent male social investment that entails. No. We need to tax the genetic Elite, preredistribute access to mating opportunities by shaming overt public displays of hypersexuality, attenuate the compounding returns to scale of modern dating apps, invest more public funds into the education and health of lower quality men, etc.
We need to dispense with Babylon and return to Sparta.
Intersexual dynamics, much like Monetary and Fiscal economic dynamics, consist of two feedback loops: 1) Genetic Progress/Open Hypergamy (interest/capital loop) and 2) Social Progress/Patriarchy (wages/labor loop). I summarize recent work by Yaneer Bar Yam on feedback loops in monetary and fiscal policy at this Medium post. The parallels are intriguing.
The first feedback loop is a filtering mechanism that maximizes the rate of return on technological (genetic) progress, by reducing taxes and lifting regulatory burdens on innovators (think Reagonomics, and its intellectual predecessor in Milton Friedman’s Chicago School) and the second is a regulatory mechanism to ensure that inequality does not lead to self-cannibalization of social investment (or, a declining propensity to consume; see Stiglitz, Krugman), i.e. men “dropping out” en masse, or incels going on killing rampages.
Bar Yam, on the other hand, a Complexity theorist, provides a third way. He concludes that an optimal macroeconomic policy would be designed to balance monetary flows to each of capital (Feminine Imperative) and labor (Masculine Imperative) feedback loops, instead of simply one over the other. Well, that’s fairly reasonable, isn’t it?
The economic lesson here is that high income inequality, which results from the rapid technological explosion of an Industrial Revolution (Sexual Revolution), is disincentivizing to the debt-loaded median consumer whose wages can neither keep up with inflation nor add to gross national income by consuming the latest, expensive goods and services. The result is a “savings glut”, to borrow the term from John Maynard Keynes, among the capital class (because nothing is worth investing) and a “consumption deficit” among the labor class, which ultimately leads to a Depression.
So, are there solutions? I strongly believe that for truly complex systems, an awful lot of good policy-making depends on finding the right metaphor. Let’s take a look at the following Depression Era metaphor, from America’s Agricultural Revolution:
The cities weren’t spared — far from it. As rural incomes fell, farmers had less and less money to buy goods produced in factories. Manufacturers had to lay off workers, which further diminished demand for agricultural produce, driving down prices even more. Before long, this vicious circle affected the entire national economy.
The value of assets (such as homes) often declines when incomes do. Farmers got trapped in their declining sector and in their depressed locales. Diminished income and wealth made migration to the cities more difficult; high urban unemployment made migration less attractive. Throughout the 1930s, in spite of the massive drop in farm income, there was little overall out-migration. Meanwhile, the farmers continued to produce, sometimes working even harder to make up for lower prices. Individually, that made sense; collectively, it didn’t, as any increased output kept forcing prices down — Joseph Stiglitz (Yglesias, 2012), emphasis my own.
Here is where I have to challenge those who cry “Luddite!”, particularly those in coastal enclaves such as Silicon Valley (Market Street) or New York (Wall St). Are “Luddites”, or suburban lower-income workers really afraid of technology per se? Or are they rightfully concerned about the social and economic exclusion that just such a lack of access to new forms of capital spells to their shared fate?
This begs the question, Is North America going through a Sexual Depression? What does Stiglitz’ metaphor look like in that context?
As Beta male mating opportunities fell, North American men had less and less social capital to court women growing up in major metropolitan regions. Common dating outlets such as church and community, as well as popular culture in general, stopped appealing to the median man, which further diminished demand for meaningful relationships, driving down social investment even more. Before long, this vicious circle affected the entire mating economy.
Is “Game” truly the best solution to the emergence of increasing social discord and damaged sex relations? Can it alone act to quell an increasing number of mass shootings, or deter psychopaths such as Elliot Rodgers and Devin Kelley? If they had simply learned Game, would they have still taken to creepy Facebook ramblings and demented sexual obsessions? I’m sure if they had got laid even once, then yes, those things would not have have happened, but would not others have taken their place?
How far can improving your communications skills or working on your max dead-lift really take you in a world in which women benefit unilaterally from the technological scale of modern dating apps and information networks? Lessons from contemporary Macroeconomics and Complexity theory paint a picture far less rosy. If “improving your Game” is similar in kind to the cutthroat world of Reagonomics, red in tooth and tax deductions, then perhaps just like trickle-down economics it as well is dead. Yet if redistributive fiscal policy is also not an option, what remains?
Should we shame women far more than we do for overt public displays of sexuality? Should we phone their mothers when they take spontaneous trips to Dubai? Should we be go to Church more often? Should we discourage women from dating whomever they please? Is it now time for an explicit Cultural Shift toward a much more sexually regulated Patriarchy?
I definitely don’t think that those men who simply can’t hack it in The Game should resign to sleeping with transwomen instead—unless of course, and as unlikely thought that may be, this is truly what they want.